Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomson Airways flight BY-1526


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Those advancing a delete argument suggest that the coverage out there does not meet the criteria of the GNG and thus this flight is not notable. Those advocating keep suggest that there are several distinguishing factors about this particular flight for which there are RS to thus demonstrate notability. As there has been extensive discussion on these two points and no agreement, a no consensus close is merited here at this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thomson Airways flight BY-1526

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )



Seems to me that, while serious, this isn't notable. There's many incidents in commercial aviation daily. Madness Darkness 22:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There’s muddle here. Aviation Herald does not distinguish between "incidents" and "serious incidents".  - SquisherDa (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no muddle whatsoever. Look through the listings, you will find many serious incidents included on there. Madness Darkness 08:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Compare them, though, with this one! It stands out from the bunch.  – SquisherDa (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds like synthesis or original research. Appropriate for determining which sources are reliable, but rubbish for writing articles.  If you can't point to sustained, significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, then all the synthesis in the world is useless. Rockphed (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The investigation classified it as a serious incident; thus, it is significant to air safety. It is not speculation, it is the conclusion of the investigation. The difference between an accident and a serious incident is only in the results. News media in the US, UK, Canada, China found it significant enough to report the incident in which 195 people could have been killed. --Pierre5018 (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep is preferable to merge, as it makes linking easier. The article's relevance is more about a lack of cross-check in an installed FMC, than about the typo that nearly caused a catastrophy.--Pierre5018 (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, itstil fails WP:GNG drastically, let alone any criteria in the WP:AIRCRASH essay.--Petebutt (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Totally non-notable, doesn't even warrant a mention in anaccidents list.--Petebutt (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge: This is not significant for a separate article or merge to List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737 and summarize. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are dozens of similar incidents every year, the vast majority of which fall under WP:NOTNEWS and/or do not meet WP:GNG. This one is no different. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, based on the discussions below, I have no objection to the content being merged to Takeoff Acceleration Monitoring System and/or other articles as appropriate, but my !vote for this article remains Delete. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Report lists (Appx.A) 33 "Examples of accidents and incidents involving problems with takeoff performance" over the years 2004(Apr) - 2018(Mrch): 14 years, so 2+/yr. That really isn’t "dozens .. every year"!!  (Anyway, though, it’s the Report, and it’s feasibility review, tht make this incident unique.)  – SquisherDa (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, oppose merge per comment below. For some reason I thought the accident report had just been published, but it actually was published nearly a year ago and that's when a lot of the worldwide coverage of the event occurred.  per WP:RECENT.  Flying is hard.  Mistakes happen.   I really don't envision a situation 15 years from now when someone will ask their friend, "remember that time that plane took off but the pilots made a mistake and something really bad could have happened but everything worked out just fine, and the plane landed safely?"  But right now, there appears to be worldwide coverage of the event (or non-event, depending on your perspective).   Under the principle of the essay WP:NORUSH, let's give this a month or three to let the facts settle.  We might learn soon that there was scandalous misconduct on the part of the flight crew.  Or, more likely, we won't learn anything since this will turn out to be a simple mistake that resulted in the flight crew being asked nicely not to do that again please. Or being newly unemployed and never heard from again, since it's Thomson Airways that just went bankrupt and ceased all operations.   I expect to wholeheartedly support deletion this December or next January if nothing new comes out before then, if this article survives this AFD, but for now, let's give it a bit of time.  RecycledPixels (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I oppose merge because I'm preferring to keep solely based upon WP:RECENT and the WP:NORUSH essay.  If it ends up that nothing notable develops in the near future, then the incident shouldn't have been included in any List articles, but someone is going to have to remember to remove it back out from that article later.  RecycledPixels (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Additional clarification- The incident happened in 2017, the final incident report was only recently released, which is what my references to WP:RECENT and WP:NORUSH are addressing.  RecycledPixels (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that Thomson Airways (part of TUI) hasn't just gone bankrupt - it was Thomas Cook that has failed.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (facepalm). I knew that. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment After watching the comments on this AFD, I reviewed the accident report that was produced by this incident.  I'm left feeling stronger on the KEEP side now, because of discussions below about WP:NTEMP, which covers concerns about ongoing notability.  Also, this incident led to two changes in the procedures at the airline; first, the company added a mandatory scenario to its 6-month required simulator training of its pilots in which the pilots would have to react to an incorrectly calculated takeoff thrust situation, and second, the company expedited the upgrade of the software in all of its FMC units in its aircraft to a more current version which performs an internal cross-check between the outside air temperature entered by the pilot flying into the system and the detected outside temperature.   The incident also resulted in in Boeing sending out a service notice urging all of its operators to perform that upgrade on all aircraft that had not yet been upgraded.  That is relevant information that should be added to the article.  I'm left feeling less like this is a flight where something could have gone wrong, but didn't and more like this is an incident that will result in long term improvements to overall aviation safety even though it did not result in serious effects (crash, runway overrun, etc.)  The flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder  were overwritten before the seriousness of the incident was detected, and the investigation is complete, so it is unlikely we'll ever learn any scandalous information about what was going on in the cockpit at the time, or why the mistakes were made in the first place beyond speculation.   RecycledPixels (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: Meets the GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Not a high-profile event, little damage, and no injuries, but a serious aviation incident that resulted in several safety and procedural recommendations by the official investigation ("Lasting effects" in the Event Guideline). I won't argue that it may seem marginal for our purposes, but coverage is adequate for Notability, and an event like this is not "routine". Article does, however, require significant revision and editing so it reads like a proper encyclopedia article. Comparable to Emirates Flight 407. Whether or not deleted as an article, event can be included in List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Boeing_737 (although nearly all of those events do, in fact, have their own article). In looking at the sources, I haven't seen where it is identified as shown in the article title; seems as though title should be "Sunwing...etc." DonFB (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The title could be Thomson Airways flight BY-1526 operated by Sunwing--Pierre5018 (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The article certainly needs rewriting - at the moment it isn't clear what happened - the article doesn't say what the result of the error was.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete – There have been a myriad of no-damage, under-powered takeoff incidents due to wrong data input in recent times. This one seems to have enjoyed slightly more news coverage than previous ones, but is no more notable (and indeed, we didn't cover previous ones either). --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * not quite, description of damage is now included in the article.--Pierre5018 (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that a runway light knocked off makes this incident any more notable? I don't. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the coverage it got in RS makes it notable, by my reading of the GNG. It might be possible to argue it's not notable by invoking IAR, but not, I think, by arguing ad hoc and without regard to the Guideline, that "damage was minor". If some or many of all those other incidents got sufficient coverage, they'd be notable too. If they didn't get the coverage this incident got, then they're not notable. DonFB (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I fail to be convinced that it meets GNG, but even if it did, that is not in itself sufficient – see the last line of GNG about creating an assumption that a topic might merit an article, subject in particular to WP:NOT (in this case, there's no sign of the enduring notability mentioned under WP:NOTNEWS, aka WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in the WP:EVENT criteria). Rosbif73 (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

– 20:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep.  Damage is a side-issue in this unusual case.  What makes this serious incident notable is what’s in the very full (81-page) investigation Report (and the reasons why the Report is so substantial).  The Aviation Herald gives very useful perspective.  Incidents are, yes, pretty common, but narrowing the search to "serious incident"s thins it to a trickle.  Even among the serious incidents, this one is an outlier.  The usual pattern there is human error or equipment failure + resulting risk situation + operating procedures applied to control the risk + satisfactory outcome. In the subject incident, once the situation had developed there was nothing anyone could reasonably be expected to do.  (The Report explores this point in depth.)  185 people were endangered and the outcome was a matter of luck.  In this case good luck; slightly less so in the similar Emirates Flight 407 Melbourne accident in 2009, said to be "as close as we have ever come to a major aviation catastrophe in Australia".  (Both pilots they re were requested to resign the following day, and did so.)  The UK Report is notable - and makes its 'parent incident' notable - for including a feasibility study on means of warning pilots when a take-off run is under-performing and recommending development of Takeoff Acceleration Monitoring Systems (TAMS).

If it’s felt there’s a consensus to delete, I hope we’ll keep a copy in someone’s User space. (We’ll need it eventually, when we’re documenting the emergence of TAMS.)  But applicable guidelines etc are as follows: – SquisherDa (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)   GNG(1): If a topic has received significant [suitable] coverage .. it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article ...  (News coverage round the world has been identified - it was felt tht there were too many sources cited.)
 * 2)   GNG(2): .. even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.  (The article’s not finished yet - it’ll be good to be able to focus a bit more on that.)
 * 3)   WP:AIRCRASH is not relevant to the question of article deletion ("should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not").  Its function is to assist with cruft control (presenting "generally accepted criteria for when to add mention of aircraft accidents to articles"; my emphasis) and "it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions"
 * 4)   WP:NOTNEWS has no relevance.  It’s the ongoing significance of the Report (and therefore the incident) that is the basis for inclusion.  None of the four classes that "Wikipedia articles are not" applies.


 * Delete did not receive lasting or sustained coverage - all of the articles, which I believe would ordinarily be good enough for WP:GNG given their international scope in a range of respected newspapers, all ran the story on 22 November 2018, and all of the articles state essentially the same thing - the news is that a report came out. Doesn't appear to be an event that has sustained lasting coverage, a requirement for an article on the site. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Sustained lasting coverage [is] a requirement": can you point us to where this is said to be a requirement? (in guidelines / policies / essays, I mean)?   Some of what’s been said above seems a bit impressionistic, and I’m hoping to relate the discussion to principle, as far as may be helpful.  – SquisherDa (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There's WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, part of WP:EVENT, and WP:SUSTAINED, part of WP:GNG. Both are guidelines, not policies, so perhaps the word "requirement" was a little strong... but then again all of the notability requirements are "mere" guidelines. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NTEMP ("Notability is not temporary") addresses this exact point. This incident, and the Report, put a peg in the ground.  The next event in the story will be either introduction of a new warning system (TAMS), a front-page accident + recriminations (or, if it’s too soon, regrets tht the lesson of this Report couldn’t be acted on faster), or a third Awful Warning (following Emirates Flight 407 and then this incident + this feasibility review).  Whichever it is, the call for TAMS made in this Report will be a milestone in the narrative.  – SquisherDa (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * NTEMP applies to topics in general, but by definition cannot apply to events, which aircraft incidents inherently are. You're making a good argument for transferring some of the content of this article into the TAMS stub, but not for maintaining it as a separate article. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? NTEMP is only three sentences long in the WP:N guideline, but I don't understand "but by definition cannot apply to events".  Where are you seeing that?  RecycledPixels (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the guidelines again, and 's explanation below, that was something of a misunderstanding on my part. I was seeing a logical contradiction between WP:NTEMP and WP:SUSTAINED, and interpreting the latter as effectively excluding events from the scope of the former. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep a relevant incident with WP:RS and no need for continued coverage WP:NTEMP Lightburst (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep meets GNG. Once a subject is notable it is always notable. The nominator also is not sure if this is notable. Nominator does not put forward a strong rationale for deletion. Wm335td (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Already !voted delete above, but this was such a non-notable incident, I cannot find any contemporaneous news articles from 21 July 2017. Aviation Herald, which is pretty on top of things, only created their article on 25 July 2017 and rated it an "incident," of which they rate several every day, and of which very few are notable. The only news here is the release of the report, which received heavy media coverage, but again, we are WP:NOTNEWS. Compare to the Qatar Miami flight or the Emirates Melbourne flight, both of which received international news immediately following their issues. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Simon Hradecky (The Aviation Herald) doesn’t mark Serious Incidents as distinct from Incidents - but doesn’t seem surprised there was a Special Bulletin as well as a final Report. Chris Brady (Boeing 737 Technical Site; ref in article) regarded it as a "significant" Serious Incident.  Yes, the aircrew obviously hoped they’d get away with it if they kept quiet; even the airport didn’t mention it until they noticed one of their little lights had had a bad day (and then just left a note in someone’s in-box rather than actually phoning!)  But once the AAIB got on it they gave it the works - SB, 84-page Report, specially-commissioned "how could that happen??" analysis, contextual list of 33 takeoff horror-stories over the last 10+ years.  They saw the point OK.  Please can we?  Pretty please?  Cos we’re an Encyclopaedia??  The Report’s the main thing, of course.  – SquisherDa (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I’m still saying Strong keep (and oppose merge) - on the same basis as before, above the line, and after reading what has been saying, also above the line, rather carefully.  @Rosbif73, that’s two interesting points!  I’m a bit puzzled by the first, tht NTEMP doesn’t apply to events . . why not?  (Yes, NTEMP appears in Notability and not in EVENT: but EVENT is supplementary to Notability.  EVENT says, as Background, tht it "was formed with the intention of guiding editors in interpreting the various pre-existing policies and guidelines that apply to articles about events, including WP:GNG."  So what’s in Notability applies to events; and what’s said there at NTEMP seems plain enough; and I wouldn’t doubt tht it’s intended to apply? - "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with [GNG], it does not need to have ongoing coverage"?)
 * What EVENT does say, at Lasting effects, is "an event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable", and that’s really what I’ve had in mind all along (though I hadn’t seen the guideline) in emphasising the Report and the finding of feasibility within it. That leads to your second idea, of 'folding' the incident article into the new TAMS stub.  I’d certainly prefer that to deletion!!  The idea is addressed generally in NOPAGE, "Whether to create standalone pages."  The emphasis there is on "how best to help readers understand" the topic.  Clearly, the TAMS context will help a reader understand why the incident is notable.  But as regards understanding the incident itself, I think stand-alone is the right thing.  There are aspects the reader is much more likely to grasp if reading an article fully focused on the incident itself.  That’s because of the limitations imposed by OR and RS.  In particular, it’s obvious, reading "between the lines" of the Report, tht both pilots were trying to enter the wrong Outside Air Temperature into the Flight Management Computer.  It wasn’t just fat finger trouble.  Both their figures came from the Flight Plan.  They plainly thought that was where they were supposed to be getting the figure from.  The chilling implication is tht a simple misunderstanding would have resulted, if there had been a brick shed near the perimeter fence, in a front-page air accident.  (A fuel fire could have made it a disaster with three-figure casualties.)  The Report can’t say so, because it is strictly fact-based (and the Cockpit Voice Recorder information wasn’t available).  We can’t say so, because that would be OR, unless we can find a source; trawling through web forums etc might deliver one, but probably not sufficiently RS (for such an important point).  So the reader is left to fill in the blank h/h-self.  For this and other details s/he will benefit from the best possible focus.
 * If I understand you aright, your views have evolved as we’ve discussed this. I’m grateful to you for what you’ve said.  May I suggest you amend your 'vote', above, to reflect what you think at this stage?
 * – SquisherDa (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there's a bit of confusion here regarding policies - WP:NTEMP simply says, once an article establishes notability, nothing that happens in the future can take away that notability, though notability can itself be revisited. What we're looking at here is WP:SUSTAINED, which this badly fails. If you look at the timeline of what happened here: a plane takes off a bit long; four days later, a write-up of this occurs on an inclusive specialty aviation website; a year later, a report is released; the release of the report gets picked up by worldwide news coverage; no further coverage of the incident at all (all news sources are between 322 and 324 days old, according to one news aggregation service. That's not WP:SUSTAINED) Those keep !voters claiming the airline changed their policies haven't shown any sources, and the fact that this could have been a serious incident - well, it wasn't, and the lack of sustained coverage shows it, and we shouldn't have an article on it. SportingFlyer  T · C  02:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought I mentioned that. The final accident report was my source for the policy changes I mentioned above.  RecycledPixels (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed your bolding on vote words here to prevent confusion. However strong your position, you only get to vote once.  Putting more votes up without striking previous votes just confuses the Admins at closure time. Rockphed (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, thanks + sorry. (I wasn’t trying to double-vote: at the time, I was thinking everything would start again at the line.) – SquisherDa (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - per SquisherDa. Bookscale (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: It is a bad sign when the majority of an article is WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, this is, while an interesting incident, also what looks like a WP:MILL incident. Aside from the flurry of coverage right after it happened and some articles right after the report was published, it doesn't look to have attracted attention. Rockphed (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What makes you mention WP:SYNTH?? What you say, it’s "a bad sign", is kind of an understatement.  SYNTH would be especially out-of-place in an article like this (= on this kind of topic).  There’s none in there.  (I’ve remarked above on "the limitations imposed by OR and RS.")  What are you seeing tht makes you mention it? – SquisherDa (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You mention "reading between the lines" of a source above. That is either Original Research or WP:SYNTH.  The sentence that triggered my synth sensors in the article is "The incident was reported in industry and enthusiast sources,[2][3][4] (identified in one as "significant"[4]) and, following publication of the Report, in mainstream media around the world.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] ".  No source says that.  No source even implies either of the two halves of that sentence.  In order to have that sentence in the article, you need to synthesize 12 sources. Rockphed (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah,, gotcha, thanks for getting back on this. I understand you better now.  (I was put off track by your phrase "the majority of an article" ("It is a bad sign when the majority of an article is WP:SYNTH.")  I don’t know if you’ll wish to withdraw it?)
 * I think we agree on OR / SYNTH being out-of-place in the article. That was the point at the front of my mind when I wrote the phrase tht caught your eye, "reading between the lines".  (You’ll see that if you revisit the context, "it’s obvious, reading "between the lines" of the Report, tht both pilots were trying to enter the wrong Outside Air Temperature into the .. Computer.  ... We can’t say so, because that would be OR.")  This limitation on what we can say (in the article) is a serious one.  We can be explicit here, or on the Talk page; in mainspace OR is the reader's privilege and is forbidden to us as editors.  That tends to mean, in this situation, tht we can include in the article the facts tht we consider make the Incident important - and even in doing that we have to be careful - but we can’t say tht they are reasons for considering the Incident important!  (Another example: it strikes me, at least (you too? - maybe not?), tht one of the reasons the AAIB gave the incident such thorough full-dress attention is tht it so nearly went unreported.  Cost considerations in the industry now mean two air-temperature adjustments are routinely applied to engine-thrust at takeoff.  I think the AAIB suspect tht there are more of these wrong-setting occasions than they hear about, and they felt this incident was an important opportunity to avoid a catastrophe tht might otherwise come soon.  Here I can say so: not in the article.)
 * On the SYNTH you say is in the article, "The incident was reported in industry and enthusiast sources,[2][3][4] (identified in one as "significant"[4]) and, following publication of the Report, in mainstream media around the world[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]" . . er, no, I submit. It might be SYNTH if we said "The incident was reported in three industry and enthusiast sources,[2][3][4] .. " (though CALC there must mean tht counting like that is OK).  Maybe you feel tht around the world in "in mainstream media around the world[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]" is SYNTH?  If so we could drop the phrase.  Dropping it doesn’t affect the article’s notability: it only affects how explicit we can be within it about why it’s notable.
 * You also suggest this might be a WP:MILL story - that is, a frequent / unremarkable occurrence. It doesn’t seem the AAIB think so, from the scale of their investigative and reporting activity.  And their Report lists only 33 incidents / accidents over twelve years (though they may suspect they tend to go unreported; but note the 33 include underperformed takeoffs from other causes too).  These incidents are important because they’re hugely dangerous: not because they’re frequent, I’d suggest.  More would be obvious, as go-arounds or crashes, if they were.  Even in kindly terrain an underrun will sometimes cause a crash after becoming airborne - just because of damage from meeting the perimeter fence.
 * – SquisherDa (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: A bad day at the office for a couple of people, making a mistake that happens regularly; could have been a bad day for several hundred people but it wasn't. There will always be reports generated by incidents like this (that's what investigative bodies are meant to do, they don't just roll for crashes) and in this day and age just about everything gets coverage by media hungry to fill their websites with stories, which is why there was a lot of coverage (all running essentially the same story) one day and then there was none... YSSYguy (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - your comment makes no sense at all - what Wikipedia policy are you relying on to argue delete? Bookscale (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay then: "non-notable incident, a brief flurry of coverage prompted by the release of the investigative report; does not meet the General Notability Guidelines". YSSYguy (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Except it did receive coverage, so it does meet GNG, so you can't argue that. Bookscale (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think YSSYguy is arguing that it didn't receive coverage in reliable sources, but that it doesn't meet WP:EVENT, specifically, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. There were, in this case, 2 spikes in coverage.  One in a couple industry sources immediately after the event.  Another in mainstream sources immediately after the government report on the event was published.  There is also a mention in a single scholarly paper of the flight, but I do not have access to the full paper to see how in depth the coverage there is. In the free version, it is given a single line in a single table.  The initial coverage reported the bare facts of the event (that an airplane had overrun the runway and hit a light).  The coverage after the report gave the expanded details (and almost look like they are copies of a press release) including the exact sequence of events of the incident; they then repeat the recommendations of the report.  If you would like to reframe your objections to his argument in terms of WP:EVENT, that would help this discussion move forward. Rockphed (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course I can argue that; house fires, car accidents and crimes all receive similar levels of coverage to this event. Let's say someone robs a bank and steals several thousand dollars/pounds/euros; the robbery is reported in the media and if the person is apprehended, tried and convicted, that is reported as well — the reportage does not automatically make the robbery notable. YSSYguy (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the bank robbery example is a good illustration of why WP:EVENT does support keeping the article.  If it was a bank robbery of a local branch of some bank somewhere, coverage would not extend much beyond the local news, and thus I'd be arguing that the incident would not meet WP's notability standards for an article.   This aviation incident did receive global independent news coverage-  the article presently includes news reports from England, Canada, US, Australia, and China.  That touches upon the "geographical scope" section of EVENT.   The long-term effects of the incident, as I mentioned in a comment far above, are that new safety and training procedures were implemented at the airline and Boeing made sent out new safety notices to all operators of the 737 around the world.   There's also repeated arguments that WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE should apply more than WP:NTEMP.  I wish those two guidelines weren't so obviously contradictory, but I think the pendulum swings away from CONTINUEDCOVERAGE because the incident has already been included in the code7700.com reference (dated September 2019) linked from the article as a case study, demonstrating continuing coverage of the incident.  RecycledPixels (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Even though CONTINUEDCOVERAGE's name suggests opposition to the article, in fact it is supportive of keeping it! - "coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established", and "events .. only covered .. without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an .. article" (whereas this one has attracted extended analysis, in the commissioned study the AAIB appended to their Report, as well as the Report’s analysis of the incidence of similar events, their earlier SB and the code7700 discussion).  There’s even a mention of case studies, as in the code7700 piece: not yet a matter of "multiple" sources, but of course "editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not"!
 * Similarly, SUSTAINED's name strongly suggests it'll argue for deletion, but in fact it has little to say (my emphasis): "brief bursts of news coverage may not' sufficiently demonstrate notability." (In this case it was a worldwide brief burst.)  SUSTAINED then continues with thoughts limited to new companies and future events - not relevant to this article.
 * – SquisherDa (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment This was not a noticeable accident.  It wasn’t an accident at all, and it nearly went entirely unreported.  It is notable, not noticeable.   was perfectly right to think tht (my paraphrase!) come 2024 people aren’t going to be chatting with  friends about that time aircrew screwed up their takeoff settings and an approach light got dinked.  This is not a Watercooler Crowd Event.  But people into aviation safety will be having conversations (in 2024?) along the lines of “That abort yesterday was TAMS-to-the-rescue, according to some of the maintenance people!" / "Yeah, good thing they brought in TAMS.  Took long enough.  It was after a top-tier safety authority read the industry’s horoscope for it, after an underpowered takeoff in Ireland.  It had been going on for years.  And they’d had some proper scares.  Emirates, for one, at Melbourne.  The Australians didn’t think that was very funny."  /  "I’m remembering now.  Belfast, weren’t they putting three different air-temperatures into the FMC?"  /  "Well, yeah, they were supposed to.  Just not those ones.  They took off well under 2/3-thrust.  Could have spoiled their whole day.  Everyone was very lucky."


 * Seriously, the Report is aviation safety history. Too much of the Delete argument above is based on phantom "myriad" events etc; all the details in my imagined conversation (up to the present!) are verifiable, and several additional points of relevance to the current MCAS story could be added to it.  Can we please keep the article?


 * – SquisherDa (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.